I ponder what the longest range hit by a BB on any kind of target was. There was a Iowa shoot in the 1980s wherein a bus was obliterated with one of the lighter shells at very near maximum range. Well, that is what Mr. S. claims, and he should know. They would not use the superheavy 2,700 pound shells for these kinds of shoots. Mr. S. claimed they were not balenced enough (wooble effects) for the very long range accuracy they were seeking to get out of the guns, but I have a pacity of data on this. The subject did lead to an animated discussion of the +/- of increasing shell weight (e.g., greater striking power over range vs accuracy). Supposedly, there is a lot of seized records on this as it relates to Krupp research done in the pre-war era, and I would love to see that stuff. As I understand it, the ratio of shell length to diameter is one problem, while another is that the weights are difficult to balence within the projectile given the need to give the aft section a chamber in which to place the relatively low density explosive charge. As a reult, the superheavy shells tend to be nose heavy with regard to their center of balence, and thus the claimed wooble effect. This would make a good steady all in itself, but I've no time for this at present. In any event, this is what I have been told by the guy who actually claims to have gotten that record long-range hit.

Well, many data does not indicate the claim regarding the 26" penetration is going to be correct in "many" cases because the plate in question suffered from temper brittleness. In other words, it cannot be claimed that the plate in question is truely representative of standard Japanese armor. Indeed, British post WWII tests on Japanese armor indicated that their equivelent of cemented and homogeneous armor was better than the British products. Moreover, British cemented armor was markedly better than US cemented armor, although US homogeneous seems a bit better than the British product. So the test in question is most likily not representative of a general result, and the person who penned that piece you read seems to have overstated his case or to have not consulted some of the available data. The internet can be a very dangerous place at times.

George Elder wrote:... and he goes on the rip the Mass. C.O. a new one about making exaggerated statements. I'm not sure what is up with all that, but Morris can be nasty at times -- which I kind of like.
George

I'm not sure what is up with all that either...

...but here is the precise quote:

“Rear Admiral Stanford C. Hooper stated at a meeting of the Institute of Radio Engineers 28 Jan. 1943, as reported in the New York Times next day, that the Massachusetts got home a salvo on Jean Bart at a range of 26 miles. The utmost range of Massachusetts in any action on this or subsequent days was 31,600 yards, and her utmost range in firing at Jean Bart was 29,000 yards or about 17-1/2 miles.” (Morison, Volume II, page 96, note 15.)

Incidentally, the chart in Morison (pgs 94-95) is, in fact, the same one reproduced on page 3 of Reilly's "Operational Experience..." and it should be noted that the range arcs drawn onto the chart are centered on Point El Hank, not Jean Bart, which was tied up some 4000 yards to the east of Point El Hank.

Further, I have yet to find any evidence in Morison’s text that “...he (Morison – or ‘Morris’) goes on the rip the Mass. C.O. (Captain Whiting [of Massachusetts]) a new one about making exaggerated statements....”

It appears only fair to observe that Morison made no such statement and Captain Whiting made no such exaggerations.

As to what Morison did write...if the reporter covering Admiral Hooper’s comments made some error in transcribing his remarks concerning the ranges at which Massachusetts was firing, we may have something to say, but otherwise...I don't see it as anything more than a minor issue.

As far as I remember, the top distance reached by any capital ship firing on anger was obtained by the Admiral Scheer: 45 km (shore firing, 4Q 1944; she 'sank' dozens of T-34's and KV-1's). Source, 'Verdammte See', Cajus Bekker. It was indirect firing (far beyond the horizon).

I was still believe that the longest Hit was made by the FRENCH Jules Verne when he Hit the Moon

- Well sir, please agree with me that you other, French, you fight for monnay, whenn us, british, fight for the honnor !
- Of course sir, but you know, everybody fight for what he's leack !
Robert Surcouf, French Corsair, 1773-1827

Sorry to necro an old thread, but I couldn't find any other appropriate thread.

The longest gunfire hit in naval history was no doubt by Yamato in the first few minutes of the Battle off Samar, 1945. A six round salvo delivered to the escort carrier USS White Plains caused her to be (this is a direct quote from White Plains' action report) 'shaken and twisted violently' and 'steering control was lost, gyro and radar failed, damage was received in the starboard engine room and all lights were extinguished throughout the ship'.

The range of this hit? Around 32,000 metres (~35,000 yards, ~17.25 nautical miles). This was on Yamato's second, maybe third salvo. This salvo could not have come from any other ship, as it was a 'six round, major calibre salvo', a feat that no other ship in the Japanese force was capable of using only their forward guns. (The japanese force was steaming toward the US force at the time, and thus only the forward armament was available).

alecsandros wrote:... the claim has been proven wrong several times already.

USS WHite Plains was not hit by any Japanese shell that day.

This depends on how you define a 'hit'. If the projectile itself must make physical contact with the target ship to 'hit' the target, then no, Yamato did not hit White Plains.

However, something had to cause that damage that was inflicted upon White Plains at around 0700, and that something was a shell fired by the Japanese battleship Yamato, directed at the carrier White Plains. For all intents and purposes, HIJMS Yamato did indeed hit USS White Plains.

See, now you're over simplifying what I said. I states that a projectile doesn't have to make physical contact. After all, modern torpedoes, naval mines, and AAA use 'blast and splinter damage' to sink ships and shoot down aircraft. Just because a shell doesn't make actual contact with the target doesn't mean it can't immediately be disregarded as a hit.

Furthermore, if you would simply read the action report of the USS White Plains, you'd see that the damage inflicted on her was more than 'blast/splinter damage'.

Let's say you're in a car, and a high explosive shell comes down from the sky and hits the ground a metre from your car, and then explodes. Although the shell itself didn't make contact with your car, the resulting explosion does, knocking your car off the road. Would you not say that some careless artilleryman hit your car?